"My Son is Dead Because the Concept of Borders Is Dead"

[nobody's_hero]

Does that honestly sound anything like what anybody means by open borders?

It sounds to me like the people most adamant about controlling our culture are the ones advocating force to keep us from being allowed to be around foreigners.

Of course no one means it. But that is the consequence.

For example: I can advocate for economic prosperity, but that may mean totally different outcomes to different people. An-caps would agree with promoting economic prosperity by opening up the free market. Statist liberals would agree with economic prosperity by redistributing wealth through government programs.

The meaning and the consequence are two different things. You can mean well, and yet do irreparable damage as a consequence.

The native Americans may not have meant to ruin their civilization by trading with the initially unimposing white man, but that was the consequence. Whether practical or not, the native Americans would have fared much better had they simply ambushed and killed the Europeans as they landed on the shores. Not saying we should do that, but you can't simply ignore the impact that immigration has on a native culture. I mean, haven't you at least played any Sid Meier's games?

[pcosmar]

Does that honestly sound anything like what anybody means by open borders?

It sounds to me like the people most adamant about controlling our culture are the ones advocating force to keep us from being allowed to be around foreigners.

Nothing new.

[erowe1]

Of course no one means it. But that is the consequence.

I see the exact opposite.

What you describe is the consequence of precisely the kinds of regulations that closed borders entail.

[Brett85]

You are a conservative, yes?

Only compared to people here. I'm known as a radical libertarian where I live. But many libertarians are in favor of border security. It's a Constitutional function of government and part of national defense.

[AuH20]

Only compared to people here. I'm known as a radical libertarian where I live. But many libertarians are in favor of border security. It's a Constitutional function of government and part of national defense.

In theory, an caps would probably be in favor of some sort of 'border security' for their territory, though they would loathe to use such a term.

[erowe1]

But many libertarians are in favor of border security.

Border security entailing what? People protecting their own private property?

[jmdrake]

It looks like the concept of borders is part of what killed his son. It's because of the concept of borders that this violent criminal was merely deported rather than being punished the way he would have been if he were a legal resident.

The OP did not say the murderer was never punished. It just says he was a repeat offender who was deported. Most offenders eventually get released from prison at some point. If the released offender is an illegal immigrant, what do you suggest be done with him other than deportation? And again, there is an easy way to improve the situation. Hold Mexico and other countries financially responsible for the care of their citizens who commit crimes while here illegally by reducing their foreign aid. Then sit back and watch Mexico beef up border security.

[Brett85]

Border security entailing what? People protecting their own private property?

The government protecting people's private property from an invasion at the Southern Border. Every day you hear of instances of illegal immigrants trampling over people's private property, destroying their property, and sometimes killing them.

[erowe1]

The government protecting people's private property from an invasion at the Southern Border.

If all you're talking about is protecting private property, it won't have any affect at all on illegal immigration.

[Zippyjuan]

The influx stopped in 2007? Where is the evidence for this? I'm sure the influx has slowed down for a variety of reasons, but stopped? That burden of proof is on you. The fact that more is being spent on "securing the border" doesn't mean that things are actually being done effectively. I know you're this sites resident proglodyte, but surely even you must know that government spending=/=effective policy. If the state were dealing with illegal immigration effectively, they'd be reintroducing the policies that worked so effectively under Eisenhower in the 1950s and early 60s.

The one thing you're right about is the whole worker visa thing; much illegal immigration does indeed come from lax policing of work visas, which is why the Cathedral-conservatives are so backward on immigration. The usual GOP PC line that "I don't care about immigration as long as it's legal. The entire population of Mexico could come here legally and I wouldn't care" is utter nonsense. There are massive problems throughout the immigration system, both legal and illegal.

The Eisenhower Plan involved increasing men at the border and raiding businesses to check for immigrants. Should we again start raiding businesses and checking ID's?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html

Then on June 17, 1954, what was called "Operation Wetback" began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.

By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.

but surely even you must know that government spending=/=effective policy.

But we should spend even more money anyways?

[Ender]

The OP did not say the murderer was never punished. It just says he was a repeat offender who was deported. Most offenders eventually get released from prison at some point. If the released offender is an illegal immigrant, what do you suggest be done with him other than deportation? And again, there is an easy way to improve the situation. Hold Mexico and other countries financially responsible for the care of their citizens who commit crimes while here illegally by reducing their foreign aid. Then sit back and watch Mexico beef up border security.

I would also bet that the son's death had more to do with the WoD than on open borders.

[The Gold Standard]

In theory, an caps would probably be in favor of some sort of 'border security' for their territory, though they would loathe to use such a term.

This is true. The key words being "their territory". If property owners on the border were allowed to do something like that now, I'm sure many would. That is a far cry from stationing U.S. troops on private and public/unowned land along the border.

[erowe1]

The Eisenhower Plan involved increasing men at the border and raiding businesses to check for immigrants. Should we again start raiding businesses and checking ID's?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html

....Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states....

But we should spend even more money anyways?

Are the borders really so much more open now than they were then? So far Obama has deported over 2 million people and used pretty tyrannical means to do so.

http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/2...-immigrants-or

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

First, the one saying 'the government must do this!!!!11!', is the one making the initial claim. I say 'we need to profile muslims' you say 'no we don't' and I say 'prove it'.

I cannot stand beside someone who says our government must clean up the mess it has made in the middle east by warring with the terrorist group of the day and likewise I cannot stand beside someone who says our government must clean up the mess it has made with the border by policing it. These are both steps away from liberty when there are obvious pro-liberty positions that spearhead the same issues. As the Hoppeians seem to realize, the government is most likely not going anywhere anytime soon, so what this 'scenario' really amounts to is the Liberty group working with the Hoppeians to advance government control over the borders. What Liberty is gained by this cooperation?

And 'certain things'. That is a good way to minimize what you advocate for. Some people maybe it is food stamps, some people maybe workplace regulations, very few are advocating for such an increase in government control.

I'm saying "borders should be controlled", I'm not necessarily saying the state should do the controlling. My ideal society is one where privately owned cities compete for citizens. In that case, the government wouldn't be necessary to control borders as it would be done privately, and I would have no problem with that. I'm not saying the government must do anything, I'm saying that in the current situation, either the government controls the border or the border isn't controlled. Between those two, the government doing it is better than no one doing it. If there was a realistic, workable way to get border control into private hands, I'd advocate for that, but I don't see it right now.

Liberty is something that exists within certain kinds of civilizations, and being discriminating when it comes to letting hordes of low-IQ third worlders is one of the prerequisites.

[erowe1]

The OP did not say the murderer was never punished. It just says he was a repeat offender who was deported. Most offenders eventually get released from prison at some point. If the released offender is an illegal immigrant, what do you suggest be done with him other than deportation? And again, there is an easy way to improve the situation. Hold Mexico and other countries financially responsible for the care of their citizens who commit crimes while here illegally by reducing their foreign aid. Then sit back and watch Mexico beef up border security.

Good point.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

If we are to hurl claims like "leftist" I suppose I have a couple of my own. I would consider anyone calling for the impeding of people's rights (more often than not, simply on the basis of superficial attributes), who advocates for the welfare program in question, and who subscribes, quite obviously, to a philosophy of collectivism, a progressive. At the very least, a student of progressivism.

I am a reactionary, a pro-monarchist an opponent of universal sufferage and an anti-egalitarian and as such an enemy of anything and everything remotely called "progressivism". People who disagree with you on immigration are not "progressives", in fact, progs are far more likely to agree with your position. Is Hans-Herman Hoppe a "progressive"? Apparently so, in your world.

YOU are the helping hand of tyranny. What you advocate for not only is counterproductive economically, it is precedent for other policy. Policy which you may not even agree with.

You are speaking of the robbing of all to pay for agents along the border. Let me repeat that. You are advocating the theft from all to establish and maintain a welfare program the price of which probably trumping SNAP. I really am at a loss for words as to how so many miss this fact. The point would be no different than if one who advocated the government provide abortions turned around and insultingly called another a progressive.

I guess my question is: Where do you get the nerve?

If liberty is to mean anything, it needs long term sustainability. Allowing an unrestricted border in the name of "liberty", thereby letting in a population that will degrade any remaining liberty that exists is the height of foolishness. Libertarian ends are far more important than immediately apparent libertarian means.

I am advocating that the border be policed. If there was a private way to do it that would be remotely possible to enact, I'd be all for it. I am not saying that the government control of the border is the best solution, just that it's better than doing nothing when you have an invasion of low-IQ third worlders at your Southern border. This is especially true when modern American society bends over backwards to accommodate Spanish speakers

And when you say "contracts enforced" I imagine you are not referring to actual contracts. You know, like Bob the Builder hiring a migrant worker to help him finish a project. No, you are referring to some unicorn of injustice. Where is this contract that you are specifically referencing? Far as I can see, said contract is obligatory of no one (that really pisses the Wilsonians off).

This statement is totally incoherent. I said that all ancaps want government to do some things while it's here, you said you didn't. I then ask if you want the state to enforce contracts and protect property; that is a separate question from anything having to do with immigration.

[Cabal]

I'm known as a radical libertarian where I live.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

According to Pew research.



Now excuse me. I have to go put a gallon of hand sanitizer on. You forced me to back up Zippy.

The reason for the decline should be obvious. That's when the housing crisis kicked into high gear. A huge percentage of illegal immigrants who come to the U.S. are construction workers.

That doesn't surprise me, given the state of the American economy, but I still don't think one can say the influx has stopped. Lets see what happens when the US economy gets on another bubble and is "good" again. At most, this shows a pause and decline due to economic crisis. Lets see what happens when the cycle starts up anew. Regardless, even the decline during crisis shows a far greater number than 15 years ago, and that statistic doesn't take into account the mass breeding of the immigrant population or their anchor babies.

I do like your idea about foreign aid, but good luck getting any politician to advocate it. It also wouldn't take care of the millions of illegals already here.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

The Eisenhower Plan involved increasing men at the border and raiding businesses to check for immigrants. Should we again start raiding businesses and checking ID's?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html





But we should spend even more money anyways?

No, we should spend money more efficiently doing things that actually worked. Operation Wetback wasn't all that costly; we enact something like that on a larger scale, and in just a few years the situation is largely reversed. The Eisenhower immigration plans weren't stopped because of cost or ineffectiveness, they were reversed because open border liberals hated the idea

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Are the borders really so much more open now than they were then? So far Obama has deported over 2 million people and used pretty tyrannical means to do so.

http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/2...-immigrants-or

Perhaps not, but the situation in Mexico is far more dire, largely because of the international drug war. That's another thing that needs to be stopped if we want to put a tourniquet on the flow of illegals (among other reasons, of course).

[euphemia]

I think part of the issue needs to be a defense of my 4th amendment freedom.

That much is the government's responsibility. If we weren't so busy running around the world trying to meddle in other nations' affairs, maybe we could defend our own borders and the people who are here legally.

[pcosmar]

Operation Wetback wasn't all that costly; we enact something like that on a larger scale, and in just a few years the situation is largely reversed.

Maybe some Jose Crow laws too while we are at it.

[Brett85]

Well, it's true. Republican voters where I live basically think that you should be sent to an insane asylum if you support a policy like ending the war on drugs.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

If anybody here actually believes that immigration destroys cultures, I'd like to see them try to explain how specifically.

Is the idea that if people get exposed to another culture, and by their own free choice adopt aspects of it, thus leaving behind the culture they used to exhibit prior to that, then that culture is destroyed? And so, in order to protect this abstraction of a culture that has no rights of its own, we have to inhibit people from the opportunity to choose to change?

Immigration doesn't destroy culture in and of itself; though the IQ shredding inherent in open immigration is very dangerous. Open immigration along with multiculturalism is what destroys culture. The way it used to be is that immigrants could bring their cuisines, their ceremonies etc. to the US, but had to adapt to the macro-culture within a generation or so, or be totally shunned by larger society. Now we have a multi-cult society, and the host country bends over backwards to accommodate the most backwards aspects of alien culture. I live in So. Cal (most of the time) and I've seen this place get slowly transform into something that looks more and more like the barrios of Mexico. That is cultural decline, any way you slice it.

There has to be a monoculture on the macro-scale that is respected if a multi-ethnic society is to be remotely successful. This goes back to ancient Rome. Rome would invade an area, destroy their tribal ways of governance, demand that they adopt Roman macro-culture, but allow them to keep their traditions in order to make the transition easier and actually desirable for the populace. Obviously this isn't a perfect analogy since one example is conquest and the other is immigration, but the principle has many parallels. Similarly, when America took California and the Republic of Texas freed itself from Mexico, both undid the Mexican version of "governance" and put in place a Western version, all for the better of those places.

What we see now is a reversal of that trend, where a low-IQ third world population is invading a first world country (a democracy no less) and instead of being forced through social pressure and institutions to adapt to their new nation, they're being catered to and allowed to change the nation to suit them. Any student of history should be aware of what a grim future this spells, but the leftist influence on libertarianism has turned the movement into a bunch of egalitarian utopians who think the market can work out culture clash and the problems of multiracialism. It can't, I wish it could.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Well, it's true. Republican voters where I live basically think that you should be sent to an insane asylum if you support a policy like ending the war on drugs.

Anyone who doesn't oppose every single action of government, regardless of the consequences isn't a libertarian, apparently. Liberty isn't the result of certain civilizations that meet perquisites necessary to create and (more importantly) maintain personal and economic freedom, it's a black and white pronouncement against any government action, even if the lack of action will lead to less freedom in the future.

"Will continued open immigration lead to an increased welfare state, the shredding of the native IQ and the destruction of the host country's culture?"
"Doesn't matter! Having the government do something decreases muh freedumz, damn the consequences!111!!"

So many libertarians use "freedom" and "liberty" the same way a progressive uses "equality". Not as a reasoned, philsophical and economic concept, but as a childish, absolutist demand, wholly separate from actual reality, and a screed to use against people who are "anti-freedom" the same way proglodytes call their opponents "racist" and "against equality".

[Zippyjuan]

Perhaps not, but the situation in Mexico is far more dire, largely because of the international drug war. That's another thing that needs to be stopped if we want to put a tourniquet on the flow of illegals (among other reasons, of course).

Actually one factor is that Mexico has improved economically. It is getting easier to find jobs down there so there is less reason to go to the US. Demographics have changed too. And most of the immigrants these days are not from Mexico but Asia.

[kcchiefs6465]

I am a reactionary, a pro-monarchist an opponent of universal sufferage and an anti-egalitarian and as such an enemy of anything and everything remotely called "progressivism". People who disagree with you on immigration are not "progressives", in fact, progs are far more likely to agree with your position. Is Hans-Herman Hoppe a "progressive"? Apparently so, in your world.

And I'm about as far away from being a 'leftist' as possible. Funny, that.

If liberty is to mean anything, it needs long term sustainability. Allowing an unrestricted border in the name of "liberty", thereby letting in a population that will degrade any remaining liberty that exists is the height of foolishness. Libertarian ends are far more important than immediately apparent libertarian means.

Meh. If their little social experiment fails, I'll try not to laugh too openly about it. The population that was, and is, degrading liberty are people. Simply that, just people. The moms want their child's education paid for, you want a border security force, George Bush Sr. wants drilling rights in the Golan Heights. How amazing that a system built upon collectivism and legal positivism, i.e, the bastardization of law, would collapse under its own weight. But I am to blame the Mexican for this? No, instead I'll put the blame where it belongs. That is, on every single person who advocates for the continuance of this collectivist commune. There might be things that I think would be nice if someone offered to do them. I don't much care to use so called representatives to rob further every one living within the confines of this particular surveyed rock.

I am advocating that the border be policed.

Indeed you are! But is that the height of your advocacy? What would you think about Bob the Builder stopping by a local Home Depot and contracting a day's work with an illegal immigrant? Would you also advocate that such an assured system of freedom would need undercover officers posing as migrants? Perhaps a database of who was born where? Maybe even a license granting one the ability to work within these parts?

You speak about the degradation of the remaining freedoms we have as if irony could possibly be more blatant.

It is not the migrant I am concerned about (though certainly quite a few would use government to their advantage). It is people just like you. And I do mean that with all due respect.

If there was a private way to do it that would be remotely possible to enact, I'd be all for it.

You mean that because you cannot finance such activities yourself, nor are you granted special privileges from the state to harass, detain, assault, or murder people, that everyone must be forced to pay for it.

Well I'll be. Certainly that is the way people feel about a lot of things. From roads, to security, to defense, to healthcare.

"If there was a private way for everyone to have healthcare coverage, you know, I'd be all for that. But since there's not, or it's pretty hard to attain if there is a way... let's vote, arbitrarily decide a figure of cost, and rob the people appropriately."

Do you see the inconsistency?

I am not saying that the government control of the border is the best solution, just that it's better than doing nothing when you have an invasion of low-IQ third worlders at your Southern border. This is especially true when modern American society bends over backwards to accommodate Spanish speakers

Okay. First, one's IQ means little. Savants can be helpless to accomplish day to day tasks and as well, the illiterate could be exceptional at crafting and making things (or whatever the variations that may and do occur when billions of people are being collectively talked about).

As to the accommodation of Spanish speakers, the government should not be involved.

But it turns out a lot is, you know, simply businesses catering to their clientele. If I had a business in East Los Angeles, you could pretty safely bet that there would be bilingual signs, bilingual help, etc. Makes sense, right?

This statement is totally incoherent. I said that all ancaps want government to do some things while it's here, you said you didn't. I then ask if you want the state to enforce contracts and protect property; that is a separate question from anything having to do with immigration.

I apologize for the confusion.

What authorizes you, or Congress, to come together and take the property of other people? Well ostensibly that would be the Constitution--the contract that never was. Since it was never signed, nor agreed to, and has hardly been read or understood by the blindingly many, people often rely on a concept called the "social contract theory." I find it rather amazing that people wishing to enforce contracts would one, deny Person 'A' from making a contract with Person 'B' depending on where the two were born, and two, that said people hold up perhaps the most illegitimate contract ever bestowed upon a population as the authorization to violate contracts! And in the name of protecting contracts, no less! What a backwards ass society. And you are concerned of migrants!? I don't think they could dream up horse$#@! as deep as that. I mean, come on.

[kcchiefs6465]

I think part of the issue needs to be a defense of my 4th amendment freedom.

That much is the government's responsibility. If we weren't so busy running around the world trying to meddle in other nations' affairs, maybe we could defend our own borders and the people who are here legally.

What do you mean?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

And I'm about as far away from being a 'leftist' as possible. Funny, that.

Not if you think that a massive flood of third world immigrants will have negligible or even a positive effect on the populace. That's a key of progressive egalitarianism: the population doesn't matter, the society will continue as it is regardless of who the demographics are. Nonsense. Answer the question: is Hans-Hermann Hoppe a progressive or a "student of progressivism"? Am I, as an anti-dmocratic reactionary a "progressive"? As we'll see, you have far more in common with a proglodyte's view of the world than I

Meh. If their little social experiment fails, I'll try not to laugh too openly about it. The population that was, and is, degrading liberty are people. Simply that, just people. The moms want their child's education paid for, you want a border security force, George Bush Sr. wants drilling rights in the Golan Heights. How amazing that a system built upon collectivism and legal positivism, i.e, the bastardization of law, would collapse under its own weight. But I am to blame the Mexican for this? No, instead I'll put the blame where it belongs. That is, on every single person who advocates for the continuance of this collectivist commune. There might be things that I think would be nice if someone offered to do them. I don't much care to use so called representatives to rob further every one living within the confines of this particular surveyed rock.

There is more than enough blame to go around: the politicians, the populace who legitimize political action, the lobbyists whose industries profit from state-action. A low-IQ horde of invading foreigners are yet another group that deserves to shoulder part of the blame, and they're one of the easiest groups to deal with, if we were just willing to do what needed doing.

Indeed you are! But is that the height of your advocacy? What would you think about Bob the Builder stopping by a local Home Depot and contracting a day's work with an illegal immigrant? Would you also advocate that such an assured system of freedom would need undercover officers posing as migrants? Perhaps a database of who was born where? Maybe even a license granting one the ability to work within these parts?

You speak about the degradation of the remaining freedoms we have as if irony could possibly be more blatant.

It is not the migrant I am concerned about (though certainly quite a few would use government to their advantage). It is people just like you. And I do mean that with all due respect.

I don't think we would need to do anything more than what Eisenhower did in the 1950s, as I've said repeatedly. That worked quite successfully with the technology of the mid-20th century, there's no reason it couldn't work today. It would probably be far easier now than sixty years ago.

You mean that because you cannot finance such activities yourself, nor are you granted special privileges from the state to harass, detain, assault, or murder people, that everyone must be forced to pay for it.

Well I'll be. Certainly that is the way people feel about a lot of things. From roads, to security, to defense, to healthcare.

"If there was a private way for everyone to have healthcare coverage, you know, I'd be all for that. But since there's not, or it's pretty hard to attain if there is a way... let's vote, arbitrarily decide a figure of cost, and rob the people appropriately."

Wrong. You don't seem to know much about the progressive mindset. People who want Single Payer Healthcare think that it is immoral to let the "profit motive" and the market keep people healthy. Explain a private way to provide healthcare to a socialist and they will still oppose it, because they think the market is too chaotic to adequately provide healthcare to people. I have a perfectly sound way to privately control borders: the Heathian anarchism I advocate where privately owned cities control their borders. I would happily move toward that system, but the US government isn't going to abolish itself and sell off its cities to corporations anytime soon. As such, as long as the state exists I want it to meet the criteria that every civilization needs to meet to have even a modicum of liberty. Secure borders is on that list of criteria.

Do you see the inconsistency?

The only inconsistency that exists is in the mind of reckless libertarians like yourself who think the government doing anything is bad, regardless of the effects of its inaction. If liberty is to mean anything, it must be grounded in philosophy, economics and history. The kind of liberty you're advocating isn't based in any of that (especially not history), it's just a childish screed against anything done by the state, damn the consequences.

Okay. First, one's IQ means little.

Complete and utter nonsense. Anyone who says that has never actually looked into the issue of what IQ predicts in terms of success and income.

Savants can be helpless to accomplish day to day tasks and as well, the illiterate could be exceptional at crafting and making things (or whatever the variations that may and do occur when billions of people are being collectively talked about).

As to the accommodation of Spanish speakers, the government should not be involved.

There are individual variations (as with all things), but IQ is a very good predictor of success in capitalist economies, and is a better predictor of future than education level. Individuals with a low IQ may be useful, individuals with a high IQ may be useless, but the effects of IQ shredding a population is quite clear. What you're spouting is the normal progressive hogwash about IQ being a meaningless metric (and you have the gall to call me a progressive).

As to the accommodation of Spanish speakers, the government should not be involved.

But it turns out a lot is, you know, simply businesses catering to their clientele. If I had a business in East Los Angeles, you could pretty safely bet that there would be bilingual signs, bilingual help, etc. Makes sense, right?

The government is absolutely involved, if you don't believe me, come visit the public schools in California and the Southwest. There is no more social pressure to learn English if you're a Spanish speaking immigrant, and that is going to lead to the increasing Balkanization the Southwest. I'm seeing the beginning of it right before my eyes, and it's not a good thing. I know private business is a part of it, which is one of the many reasons I oppose consumerism as the main cultural force within the US.

I apologize for the confusion.

What authorizes you, or Congress, to come together and take the property of other people? Well ostensibly that would be the Constitution--the contract that never was. Since it was never signed, nor agreed to, and has hardly been read or understood by the blindingly many, people often rely on a concept called the "social contract theory." I find it rather amazing that people wishing to enforce contracts would one, deny Person 'A' from making a contract with Person 'B' depending on where the two were born, and two, that said people hold up perhaps the most illegitimate contract ever bestowed upon a population as the authorization to violate contracts! And in the name of protecting contracts, no less! What a backwards ass society. And you are concerned of migrants!? I don't think they could dream up horse$#@! as deep as that. I mean, come on.

I don't care about "authorization" or "legitimacy" or anything of the kind. I am a utilitarian; I care about a sustainable civilization built on liberty, and a society that lets hordes of low-IQ,genetically distinct invaders who don't speak the language into its border will totally lack sustainability or liberty.

Nor do I believe in the social contract. To me, the best argument for the government is the theory of "organic government", but I think the state is a largely lumbering, inefficient overly-costly apparatus that can more efficiently be replaced by market actors, hence I oppose its existence. However I only advocate its complete abolition under certain circumstances that the society must meet. We are a far, far cry away from meeting those circumstances, so in the meantime I'm okay with the state doing things if it will increase liberty in the long run. Libertarian ends over immediately libertarian means. Immigration control wouldn't need to increase the size or scope of the state, or even increase spending if the "defense" budget was cut (which it should be in any case).

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Actually one factor is that Mexico has improved economically. It is getting easier to find jobs down there so there is less reason to go to the US. Demographics have changed too. And most of the immigrants these days are not from Mexico but Asia.

I'm glad to hear Mexico is improving; it won't be hailed as a "cruel" act to send the illegals back, then.